IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Anyone read this yet? I saw the title and was about to bury it back where I found it, then I saw the author. Vincent Bugliosi? From the several other works of his I have read he never struck me as a partisan kook, so I figured may as well give it a shot. Just curious if anyone else has picked it up already.

I'm not familiar with the guy who wrote this, but murder has a specific legal meaning, and there's not a chance in hell that anything Bush did constitutes murder of American soldiers sent to Iraq. Hell, even if the troofers were right, he still wouldn't be guilty of the murder of American troops in Iraq. So this guy is a kook.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

I'm not familiar with the guy who wrote this, but murder has a specific legal meaning, and there's not a chance in hell that anything Bush did constitutes murder of American soldiers sent to Iraq. Hell, even if the troofers were right, he still wouldn't be guilty of the murder of American troops in Iraq. So this guy is a kook.

__________________I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

As anyone who watched the talk shows during the trial knows, the OJ verdict made his mind explode.

__________________"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

As anyone who watched the talk shows during the trial knows, the OJ verdict made his mind explode.

It's always sad to see a formerly sharp mind start to crumble.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

That was my thought when I saw who wrote it and then looked at the title again. But he finished his JFK book only recently and still sounded completely sane, so I'm hoping maybe the actual contents of the book are better than the title implies.

I've just downloaded a sample of this book to my Kindle. His premise seems to be that any US state Attorney General would have grounds to prosecute Our Glorious Christian Leader based on the deaths of service members from that state.
--
On page 1 he states that GWB knowingly and deliberately took this country to war under false pretenses. He describes this as "monumentally criminal behavior". He later asks "If what he did is not the greatest crime ever committed by any public official or private citizen in this nation's history, then I ask you, what is?"
--
Based on various estimates and descriptions of direct or indirect causes of deaths, there may have been anywhere between 25 to 250 Iraqi deaths per deceased US soldier, but perhaps US states would have no jurisdiction in these deaths. Nonetheless I personally find it very curious that people who are well prepared to criticize our war of imperialist aggression based on a pack of lies seldom discuss the people we have killed in their own country, many in their own homes.

I have been reading Scott McClellans book, but find his minor concessions to the facts of the matter leave me feeling unsatisfied.

__________________“It is painful enough to discover with what unconcern they speak of war and threaten it. I have seen enough of it to make me look upon it as the sum of all evils.”
_______Gen. Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

I know not many around here think much of Alex Jones, but this is not about him. It is about the subject of this book.

In this new interview by Jones of Bugliosi (which is better than the first interview I posted), you get to hear from Bugliosi exactly what's in the book, and the reason why BUSH CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER. This is no pie in the sky notion.

Bugliosi, 73, is doing this because he knows Bush is guilty of murder and can be prosecuted for it. He goes into detail on how this can be done in the book. He sounds very convincing.

Bugliosi mentions a remarkable tactic in the book that should enable prosecuting attorneys throughout the country to charge Bush with murder and with conspiracy to commit murder (both counts). He says he did his homework in researching and establishing jurisdiction for prosecuting attorneys to act upon. He is quite confident he is right.

From reading this thread, I really don't believe anyone here understands fully the details in this matter. However, it is for real. Personally, I've known for years Bush lied us into war, invading a sovereign country, and that as a result of his lie thousands of our soldiers have been killed as well as thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. This is terrible and demands justice.

Bugliosi has solid evidence of the lies, which are bulletproof and ready for court.

Although this is currently being shunned by the MSM (no news there), I predict this will change as this story is not going away. I have read three of Bugliosi's books (he is a national best-selling author) and am looking forward to reading this one. Vincent Bugliosi is not just a great writer, he is much more a great prosecutor (and has a mind like a steel trap).

To those who say we can't prosecute Bush for murder, Bugliosi says unequivocally that we can, and he is a top expert in his field with convictions to back it.

Listen to the interview and judge for yourself; see if he's got anything to say.
Thanks.

__________________“It is painful enough to discover with what unconcern they speak of war and threaten it. I have seen enough of it to make me look upon it as the sum of all evils.”
_______Gen. Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

I'm not familiar with the guy who wrote this, but murder has a specific legal meaning, and there's not a chance in hell that anything Bush did constitutes murder of American soldiers sent to Iraq. Hell, even if the troofers were right, he still wouldn't be guilty of the murder of American troops in Iraq. So this guy is a kook.

I would say manslaughter. you add the negligence with the events leading up to 9/11, you add the lies and deceit he used to get into war with Iraq, you have the War crime he committed by having a war of aggression, you add the bombing, murdering and destruction of Afghani women and children. Afghanistan had no miltary whatsoever. They did not declare war on the United States, They were just as much victims as the workers that were working in the WTC on 9/11. American military planes murdered human beings. The commander and chief is chiefly responsible. So manslaughter? Definitely. Murder? Perhaps. Impeachment? Absolutely!

Remember Bush's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution. There was no declaration of war or equivalent action.

By Article VI of the Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land" , This was not a war in self-defense because they had no weapons and were not involved in 9/11. In contrary, it was a war of aggression. Which is on the contrary of the U.N. Charter. That is a crime against peace and that is a war crime. That is an impeachable offense.

To reiterate, Robert parry says this, "this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime."

Kofi Annan: "The war in Iraq is a violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal." A war of aggression refers to any war not initiated out of self-defence or sanctioned by the UN."

Such a violation of international law would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.

Funny thing, but whenever Congress has actually investigated those issues, they've found that he didn't lie.

Quote:

you have the War crime he committed by having a war of aggression,

Wars of agression are not war crimes. War crimes deal with how wars are fought, not why.

Quote:

you add the bombing, murdering and destruction of Afghani women and children.

Not a war crime. War is messy. There's no possible way to make it completely clean.

Quote:

Afghanistan had no miltary whatsoever.

Not so. The Taliban military was ragtag, but it most certainly existed. If it didn't, they wouldn't have been able to take over the country in the first place.

Quote:

They did not declare war on the United States,

No, Al Qaeda did, and the Taliban harbored them.

Quote:

They were just as much victims as the workers that were working in the WTC on 9/11.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "they" in the sentence above? The people of Afghanistan? Indeed, they were victims. They were victims of the Taliban, and YOU would apparently have prefered that we leave them to Mullah Omar's tender mercies.

Quote:

American military planes murdered human beings.

No, they killed human beings. Murder is a particular form of killing, which must meet certain statutory requirements in order to qualify. What you describe does not qualify.

Quote:

Remember Bush's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution. There was no declaration of war or equivalent action.

Oh, but there was. And there is no "War Powers Clause" of the US constitution. Perhaps you're confusing it with the War Powers Act, which the AUMF was very much in compliance with.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Funny thing, but whenever Congress has actually investigated those issues, they've found that he didn't lie.

Wars of agression are not war crimes. War crimes deal with how wars are fought, not why.

Not a war crime. War is messy. There's no possible way to make it completely clean.

Not so. The Taliban military was ragtag, but it most certainly existed. If it didn't, they wouldn't have been able to take over the country in the first place.

No, Al Qaeda did, and the Taliban harbored them.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "they" in the sentence above? The people of Afghanistan? Indeed, they were victims. They were victims of the Taliban, and YOU would apparently have prefered that we leave them to Mullah Omar's tender mercies.

No, they killed human beings. Murder is a particular form of killing, which must meet certain statutory requirements in order to qualify. What you describe does not qualify.

Oh, but there was. And there is no "War Powers Clause" of the US constitution. Perhaps you're confusing it with the War Powers Act, which the AUMF was very much in compliance with.

They murdered human beings just like Al-quada murdered human beings. The people of America did not bomb Iraq for 10 years just like the people of Afghanistan did not attack America.

The people of Afghanistan were victims of nazi-esque terrorists from the United States. The people of Afghanistan were victims of war-hungry, oil-addicted, pathological lying psycho-paths. The people of Afghanistan are being exploited for their poppy seed production. If Afghanistan is not the biggest poppy country in the world, then who is? China? Heroin comes from poppies. So does opium?

When you go to war under U.N. Resolution, you have to follow the rules. They broke the rules, and you have to do the time. Impeachment and the prison time.

It's called justice. And it will save our reputation with other countries in the world.

My point is, he has to declare war. The words "declaration of war" have to appear in the text.

Manipulating the constitution for evil is an impeachable offense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

n 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never settled, and presidents both Democratic and Republican have repeatedly either ignored or criticised it as an unconstitutional encroachment upon the President.

My point is, he has to declare war. The words "declaration of war" have to appear in the text.

Manipulating the constitution for evil is an impeachable offense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

n 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never settled, and presidents both Democratic and Republican have repeatedly either ignored or criticised it as an unconstitutional encroachment upon the President.

We have had only 5 "declared wars" in our history. We have had 17 major military actions in our history. There is nothing in the constitution than compels congress to exercise its power to formally declare war but that is moot anyway. The IWR gave bush all the authorisation he needed to invade Iraq. The IWR was actually modeled on the resolution passed in Congress to give Jefferson authority to go to war with the Barbary Pirates which led to the invasion of Tripoli.

Ziggurat, do you believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq were/are morally right or wrong?

I happen to, but for the purposes of this thread, that opinion is actually irrelevant, because it's got nothing to do with the legality of the war. Immoral wars can be legal, and moral wars can be illegal - nothing about our legal system guarantees an exact correspondence between the two issues, nor can it.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war

IT has never been called a "war powers clause". There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL requirement that Congress declare formal war before military action. Congress gave Bush statutory authority to take military action in the form of the IWR. You are not even close to understanding the constitution.

IT has never been called a "war powers clause". There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL requirement that Congress declare formal war before military action. Congress gave Bush statutory authority to take military action in the form of the IWR. You are not even close to understanding the constitution.

Yes it has. I thought I provided a link. You only go to war with a declaration of war from congress. He broke the laws of the land (U.N. laws) and should be punished accordingly. He has commited a war crime and lied so that he could go to war. These are impeachable offenses.

Yes it has. I thought I provided a link. You only go to war with a declaration of war from congress. He broke the laws of the land (U.N. laws) and should be punished accordingly. He has commited a war crime and lied so that he could go to war. These are impeachable offenses.

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

Don't you even read your own links?

Quote:

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never settled, and presidents both Democratic and Republican have repeatedly either ignored or criticised it as an unconstitutional encroachment upon the President.

The Iraq War resolution was passed PRIOR to hostilities do you get it yet?

The Iraq War resolution was passed PRIOR to hostilities do you get it yet?

It's constitutionality has never settled. And I am not a constitutional lawyer so I'm just gonna stick to my guns and agree with Ron Paul it was a mistake going in and we can march right out. We marched right in, we can march right out.

For My children. For my childrens children. I thinking what's best for my country and what's best for the future of my country, and the children who will one day grow up and inherit it. We need to leave this place better than when we first got it. With liberty and justice for ALL!

United we stand! Stand up against un-american traitors and impeach bush before it's too late and we go to war with Iran.

And... the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Indeed, that was what the British government thought. Which means that statement was not a lie. And there's still evidence he did seek uranium from Africa, though he probably didn't get any.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

If Bush can be tried for murder based on this, then so could every single president we've ever had. Questionable military actions are a staple of American foreign policy. It's kind of a tradition at this point, and it works because we only get outraged when the opposing party does it.

The un-american traitors are these neo-conservatives like Rice, Rumsfeld, powell, Bush, cheney, Etc.

Pax Americana parky. Pax americana.

Um... Bush isn't a neoconservative. But then, you probably have no clue about what the term means, do you?

And you are aware, aren't you, that "pax" means "peace"?

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

If Bush can be tried for murder based on this, then so could every single president we've ever had. Questionable military actions are a staple of American foreign policy. It's kind of a tradition at this point, and it works because we only get outraged when the opposing party does it.

You should read the articles of impeachment. You will see that Bush, well.... is a special case. He's in a world all his own. Clinton bombed countries but No president is quite like Bush.